Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

When Did Voyeurism Stop Being a Vice?

Did you know that the term “peeping Tom” was inspired by an 18th-century
story? As legend goes, Lady Godiva
persistently begged her husband, the Earl of Coventry, to ease the tax burden
of the people under him. Finally, in exasperation, he promised to acquiesce
only if she rode through the town on horseback—in the nude. She agreed.

During her ride, the townsfolk remained indoors out of respect—all of
them, that is, except one man. This person’s
“lustful curiosity compelled him to gaze at her and
[he] was then, according to various versions of the legend, struck either blind
or dead in punishment.” What was the pervert’s name? I’ll give you a
three-lettered guess.

No Christian would want to be labeled a peeping Tom. After all, it is
indecent and immoral to receive sexual pleasure by watching someone other than
your spouse undress or engage in sexual activity. We fully acknowledge that.

Or do we? Douglas Wilson says we do not. In his book Reforming
Marriage, he lays before our eyes the naked truth (so to speak):

Many
Christians are willing to watch, by means of a movie camera, what they wouldn’t
dream of watching in person. You couldn’t get them into a topless bar, and yet
they cheerfully go to films where they see far more. Would most Christian men
be willing to be peeping Toms, roving the neighborhood? Certainly not. But what
if they discovered a woman who knew of their presence and was willing to
undress in front of the window? That would be worse. What if she were paid to
do all this? Worse, worse, and still worse. And if she is paid lots of money,
has a producer and director, does all this for the movie cameras, and has millions
of men drooling at her window sill? This is suddenly different and becomes
quite a “complicated” issue. (p. 111)

Pastor Wilson is exactly right. In light of what Scripture has to say
about public nudity and public sex, and in light of what we’ve already studied
in this blog series,
it isn’t the issue that is complicated, but rather the tangled web that
is own hearts.

Have you noticed that one of the main ways we as a society seek sexual
enjoyment is through watching? We justify gazing on people sexually acting out
by labeling it as entertainment. We peruse articles telling us what it was like
for Actor X to kiss (or share a sex scene with) Actress Y in Movie Z. We pore
over Victoria’s Secret and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit magazines with relish. We play videogames that invite us to ogle their characters’ bodies. It could be argued, I suppose, that we’re not actually participating in
any sex act ourselves. After all, we’re just watching. But that’s just a denial
of how the sex act works. The authors of Every Man’s Battle make a
helpful clarification:

For males,
impurity of the eyes is sexual foreplay. . . . Because
foreplay is any sexual action that naturally takes us down the road to
intercourse. Foreplay ignites passions, rocketing us by stages until we go all
the way. . . . No doubt about it: Visual sexual gratification is a form of sex for men.
As males, we draw sexual gratification and chemical highs through our eyes.
(pp. 66, 68)

In light of the sexual nature
of even simulated sex scenes, the sexual stimulation that occurs in such acts
(for both actors
and viewers),
and the obscenity involved in these scenes, it’s no wonder that they promote voyeurism.

Cinematic sex scenes and porn films invite us to do something we were
never designed to do: watch people sexually act out. Through the medium of
film, we have grown accustomed to gazing on moments of intimacy. Something
about putting a camera lens between the participants and us provides enough
distance for us to squelch our conscience and soak in the sights and sounds of
sex.

All in the name of entertainment.

I’m not up in arms about this because I’m an opponent of pleasure,
though. Just the opposite! Voyeurism is a poor substitute for true sexual
enjoyment. In our voyeuristic culture, we find ourselves needing the sexuality of those outside our relationships in order
to enjoy even our own relationships. We treat blatant porn or “acceptable”
cinematic sex as the standard to which we (secretly, at least) hope to attain.
Only when we can make our sex lives mirror the lives of those we see on screen
do we feel like we’ll be happy. We’ve made an unnatural connection between
voyeurism and sexual release, between the sex we see on the screen and the sex
we hope to enjoy in our own lives.

That is not how sex was designed. God created sexual intercourse to be
enjoyed personally, not vicariously. Through His provision of marriage, He
wants us to experience the ecstasy of sex firsthand, not secondhand. He has
provided us a way to enjoy true intimacy, not just to be on the outside looking
in, snagging meager scraps that fall off the table of stars and supermodels.

Remember also that God created our sexuality to know Him more fully. His provision of marital union is an image of the personal
and harmonious relationship between Christ and His church. Through marriage,
God calls us to see His love and devotion for His cherished, blood-bought bride.

Just as God did not design us to be sexual voyeurs, He also didn’t
design us to be spiritual voyeurs. Through the gospel (which is illustrated in
the marriage relationship), He calls us to know Him personally, not
vicariously. He invites us to experience His grace firsthand, not secondhand.
He offers us the privilege of knowing Him intimately, not to watch from the
outside.

When all is said and done, voyeurism isn’t so horrible because it seeks
pleasure, but because it involves trading in covenantal enjoyment for cheap
thrills. It leaves us with much less than God has promised. With that in mind,
do we really want to defend entertainment choices that offer such a bastardized
version of the beauty and glory of sex?

Comments

Did you know that the term “peeping Tom” was inspired by an 18th-century story? As legend goes, Lady Godiva persistently begged her husband, the Earl of Coventry, to ease the tax burden of the people under him. Finally, in exasperation, he promised to acquiesce only if she rode through the town on horseback—in the nude. She agreed.

[This obligatory comment is designed to make Facebook recognize my article’s content. Thanks for your understanding. (And thanks for reading even these comments, Dr. Alan Noble.)]

Most Popular Posts

The first assault against Jennifer
Lawrence was heavily discussed in the news and on social media. The second has received
comparatively little fanfare. The first incident resulted in an FBI
investigation, subsequent prosecution, and an upcoming sentencing. The legal ramifications of the second incident are practically
nonexistent. The overall response to the first was outrage. The response to the
second was indifference.

What were these two incidents? The
first, as you may have guessed, was the 2014 iCloud hack in which private/nude photos of several female celebrities, including
Lawrence, were stolen and published online. The second incident involved the
filming of Jennifer Lawrence’s first sex scene (for the sci-fi movie Passengers). Let me set the stage by
sharing three similarities between the photo hack and the sex scene.
First, in the aftermath of the photo hack, Lawrence experienced anxiety. “I was
just so afraid,” she later said. “I didn’t know how this would affect my caree…

Several years ago, Kate Beckinsale
was conned into signing a movie contract that required nudity—something she
didn’t want to do. With her acting career in jeopardy, she found herself
browbeaten by the director. “I was really disturbed and I was sobbing and
begging,” she said.
At long last, she gave in to intimidation and performed the nude scene, which
made her feel
“violated and horrible.” Afterwards, she secretly urinated in
the director’s thermos in revenge.

In more recent history, one
actress from the HBO show Game of Thrones mustered up the courage to refuse doing any more nude
scenes. She is reported as saying
that she wants to be known for her acting, not for her body parts. (It’s a
sorry state of affairs that requires such a statement to be made in the first
place.) When the show started, she didn’t have nearly enough clout to buck the
system. A season of the show’s overwhelming popularity may have been what put
her in a better position to bargain with the producers. Would yo…

If you’re a fan of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, and if you’re excited
about its upcoming sequel, you and I probably have several things in common. We
likely agree that historic Christianity is becoming less and acceptable in the
public sphere. We likely agree that many of our nation’s college campuses are
becoming more and more hostile to individuals who adhere to any form of
absolutes. We also likely agree that there is an increasing need for believers
of all types—students, teachers, pastors, filmmakers, etc.—to engage with our world
in an effective and countercultural way. It’s actually because of these
shared beliefs that I’m majorly concerned with the popularity of God’s Not Dead (and other movies like
it). And it’s because of these shared beliefs that I want to explain my concerns to you. I’ll put aside most of the
artistic issues I have with the film. (For that, I’ll direct you to my cyber
friends Steven D. Greydanus and Peter T. Chattaway). My main focus here will be on the mov…

* CONTENT ADVISORY: This topic requires a certain level of
frankness that may be inappropriate for some readers. While I have taken great
pains to avoid titillation, reader discretion is still advised. * Last week, we looked at the four main ways in which motion picture sex scenes and pornography are different.
Now I want to show how these factors actually prove to condemn Hollywood’s
methods rather than excuse them. Argument #1: There is often a difference in production
values. Motion pictures are a form of art, whereas porn is unabashed
titillation. Hollywood’s mash-up of blatant
sexuality (nudity and sex scenes) and aesthetics only serves to make its
displays of sex more alluring to the viewer. As supposed works of art,
Hollywood films are concerned with giving their audiences pleasure through
beauty. That’s what aesthetics are all about. What is ultimately more alluring:
a sex scene with bad lighting, poor audio quality, and shoddy production work,
or a sex scene with good composition…

So there I was, surrounded by church members, my pants wet,
my blood boiling. This wasn’t what I needed—at least, that’s what I told
myself.

The morning had started innocently enough. Shannon and I
arrived at our church building later than normal. Because of the pouring rain
and the packed parking lot, I said I would drop Shannon off at the front and then
go park and bring our Bibles and notebooks in. (After all, with an umbrella and
a raincoat at my disposal, my trek across the parking lot wouldn’t be too bad.)
Shannon didn’t want me lugging the books in the rain, so she
grabbed them before heading into the building. I then parked near the back of
the lot and reached for the umbrella.
It wasn’t there. Not in the back seat…not in the front seat.
Not anywhere. Shannon must have taken it inside with her.
Okay. No big deal. I still had my raincoat, and thanks to my
memory of a once-watched YouTube video, I had learned the trick to staying relatively
dry while traveling in the rain: wal…

Yes, I am
still on a Greatest Showman kick. Cut
me some slack, though. My wife and I only saw it for the first time just under
three weeks ago. The soundtrack still plays almost daily in our home, providing
near endless opportunities for our toddlers to daintily prance and spin as they
sing along with “The Circus Man” (as they gleefully call him). Besides, for
someone who’s as unhip as myself, it makes sense that I would be taken in by
such an uncool (according to critics), and yet wildly popular (according to general audiences), movie.

So, what
is my point in writing another post about this particular film? To gush like a
fanboy who has staked a personal claim to gold-encrusted, front-row seats on
the Greatest Showman bandwagon? Not exactly.
(That’s just a happy side effect.) The point of this blog post is to…well,
point out a unique aspect of the song “A Million Dreams.” After listening to this
song a bajillion times (give or take a few), I’ve noticed something
extraordinary about i…

I recently read through Genesis 15, where God reassures Abram, who is currently childless, that he will have numerous descendants (which God had initially promised in Genesis 12:1-3). Abram’s response leads to something amazing: “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

Commenting on this verse, Martin Luther says, “Righteousness is nothing else than believing God when He makes a promise.” The anti-intuitive nature of this statement struck me forcefully. You see, I am unconsciously inclined to think that my striving hard to do well is the kind of righteousness that pleases God. When I obey a particular law, do a good deed, or reject a temptation, then I have earned at least a small degree of God’s favor. But that is not how it works.

God definitely blesses our faith-inspired efforts, but such efforts are…well, based on faith—that is, confidence in God’s promise to pardon and accept me through Christ’s atoning work. If I attempt to som…

Last week, we looked at
Hollywood’s underground culture of sexual
abuse: how actors are routinely coerced into violating their consciences by
performing nude scenes and/or sex acts on screen. While audiences have grown
comfortable with watching such scenes, actors are often uncomfortable (or
worse) with filming them.

Isn’t it true, though, that some actors
willingly undress for the camera? The simple answer is, of course, yes. But
it’s an answer that requires at least two clarifications. And since women are
the majority of the victims in these circumstances, we’ll focus on women for
the rest of the article. First, it’s not as easy as you
might think to discern the difference between willing and unwilling
performances. Take just one example (or, rather, an example in several parts)
from recent history, all involving a “willing participant.” Actress Margot Robbie recounts
how her audition went for the movie The
Wolf of Wall Street. She showed up for the audition in her usual
look: jeans …

Your argument robs adult women of
agency because it says outright that they
are not consenting and implies they
cannot consent. It infantilizes adult women and asserts that they can only
be protected by men with a white knight impulse. We’re getting into an area
where women are regarded as little more than sheep, being led by whatever crook
is nearest.
As regular visitors know, over the past few years I have
focused much of my blog’s attention on how the entertainment industry places
pressure on actors to perform nude and/or sex scenes for audiences. It’s a
problem that is at once both tacitly acknowledged and blithely ignored. I have
argued further that those who suffer most under this burden are actresses.
With my emphasis on women, some readers have responded with
major concerns. I am both thankful for and alarmed by this feedback, because
the quoted critique above is not what I have meant to communicate. Not at all. I
offered a …

Let me tell you about a film that’s garnered a lot of
publicity. The story revolves around a wealthy and debonair businessman with
serious control issues. His sexual tastes involve perverse fantasies, but he
gets what he wants because he’s rich, powerful, and handsome. In telling this
story, the movie doesn’t shy away from depictions of the sex act. The audience
is inundated with sex, in fact. The debauchery is enough to make a lot of
people sick, either with revulsion, pleasure, or a mixture of both.

Do you think I’m talking about Fifty Shades of Grey? Actually, I’m referring to The Wolf of Wall Street, which came out on
DVD just last year.
Many prominent Christian critics loved WoWS, as I pointed out earlier. Fifty Shades of Grey,
on the other hand, has been either ignored or condemned. And yet there are some
glaring similarities in how both movies handle sex.
They both employ stylistic techniques that were labeled as hardcore porn just a few decades
ago. These techniques involve …